For a book that got bad reviews, I went whole hog and read The Feminist and the Cowboy by Alisa Valdes. I was always curious but I shied away once the negative reviews start pouring in both before and after it came out the relationship ended. This book earned every negative review.
This is definitely one of the worst books I have
ever read. If you want to appreciate how much I hated it, feel free to look at
my status updates on GoodReads.
I’m going to start with why I hated it. The fact
that she calls herself a feminist is insulting to me and everyone else who
believes feminism is a fight for equality. Here are some of her thoughts on
feminism:
“Like so
many children of second-wave feminism, I began to subconsciously equate being
the dominator with being free.”
“I had
been, for my parents, less a daughter than I was a chance to create a brave new
deserialized female citizen immune to discrimination. I was not alone; there
were millions like me. I was one in a confused, skirtless army of girl
Frankensteins, the first postfeminist prototypes of the All-American un-Girl.”
"I
was really good at blaming men for my shortcomings as a person."
"I
was so insanely radical that I couldn't honestly imagine being sexual with men
because it seemed like such a betrayal of the cause to, like, open up and let
them in."
That last one is so incredibly not normal. If
you feel that being heterosexual and having a relationship makes you a traitor
to feminism, you need so much therapy.
Of course her interpretation of feminism screwed up her life. It has precious
little to do with actual feminism.
Despite her own issues, Valdes spends a great
deal of time researching how men and women are fundamentally different. None of
the information is cited for our benefit but it was enough to fuel her to
become a ‘difference feminist’ who has its ideas rooted in the Catholic Church. If your feminism is based in tenants from a religion
that is notoriously for negative attitudes toward women, you may want to ask
some serious questions about what you actually believe.
At one point Valdes catches the cowboy in a lie he told
so smoothly that it’s close to sociopath levels of deception. When she calls
the other woman to get the full story, he’s upset that no only has he been
caught in a lie, he’s been caught in all of it. When Valdes dares to speak to
the other woman again, the cowboy goes from ‘I’ll do anything to fix this’
(except end things with the other woman while you can witness it, let’s not get
carried away) to ‘we’re done’ in a matter of hours.
That is gloriously manipulative. He’s willing to
do anything to salvage the relationship (so long as it’s on his terms) but when
Valdes ‘makes a mistake’ he completely flips the situation so it’s her fault. I
have been on the other side of this. It’s a way for him to get out of trouble
for half the cost of his original sin.
He only agrees to take her back if he’s in
totally control of the relationship. He wants to take care of her and be the
strong, traditional man. The fact that he wasn’t interested in listening to her
or negotiating is irrelevant.
Why did it get so many bad reviews other than
the obvious? Because the relationship was over by the time the book came out
because he physically abused her. It’s been well documented by Jezebel, Slate,
Salon and New York Magazine.
I’ve read books with worse writing (although
this book cracks the top 10) but I hate this one so much more. Valdes
perpetuates negative stereotypes about feminists and showcases an unhealthy
relationship as a good goal. I hope nobody ever wastes money on this insult to
the written word again. I am impressed by how much I hated this book.
No comments:
Post a Comment